Board Logo
« Paul Villa's photos genuine »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 24th, 2017, 03:32am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  ...  7 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Paul Villa's photos genuine  (Read 5817 times)
HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff

member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 276
xx Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Thread started on: Nov 20th, 2006, 2:13pm »

I was recently looking through the library of UFO photos on the casebook when I came across this photo taken by Paul Villa in 1963.
User Image

It is referred to in the casebook photo library as being probably a hoax. I guess this is because of two reasons. Firstly, there appears to be lines coming down to the top of the craft on the photograph, and some have postulated that these might be wires holding up a small model.
Secondly,as the photo was taken by Paul Villa and his later full colour broad daylight photos of extra terrestrial craft were ridiculed on the grounds that they were just too good, this 1963 photo was tarred with the same brush. However, as some Casebook members may know, I have long been an admirer of Paul Villa and have not the slightest doubt that he was honest in what he showed us.
I was delighted therefore to find this photograph in the Casebook library which was taken in California in the 1970's.
User Image
The photographer is not identified but I feel fairly confident that it was not taken by Paul Villa. Careful examination of the two photos convinces me that they are of an identical type of craft and as no one seems to think that the Californian UFO is a fake, I guess that means that neither is the one in Paul Villa's photograph.!
This leads me back to the famous photos which Paul took in 1963 when he was telepathically contacted and told to go to a desert location with his camera for the purpose of photographing UFOs. I'm sure that every member of the Casebook has seen those photos and here is a close up of the craft in one of them.
User Image
In the abductions section of the Casebook under the heading, Life as an abductee, I recount how I stood less than 200 feet beneath an identical craft in 1980, and so I know from personal experience that Paul Villa's craft is the genuine article. Imagine my delight when I came across what I believe to be a photo in the Casebook library of the same craft taken by an unknown photographer in Michegan in 1966 during a ufo flap in that area. Here is that Michigan UFO.
User Image
Can anyone seriously doubt that it shows an identical design of craft to the one photographed by Paul Villa.?
I am certain that Paul was a man of high integrity and it is about time that his contribution was properly recognised.
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2007, 07:31am by oljack666 » User IP Logged

HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff

member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 276
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #1 on: Nov 20th, 2006, 2:27pm »

Although I have no doubts about the case for the first photos shown above, I must say that I doubt the Michegan photo. I promise that I have taken it from the Casebook photo library as the Michegan ufo, but on close examination the background of the photo looks identical to that in the Paul Villa photo. What is going on here?
User IP Logged

HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff

member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 276
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #2 on: Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:02am »

I also notice similarities with the first two ufo photos at the beginning of this thread. The background in the right side of the two pictures looks identical. Were they both taken at the same location or is there another explanation.?
Would one or more of the technical wizards on this site please cast their expert eyes over this and offer suggestions.
In either event something very strange is going on here.
Many thanks,
Rob (HUBCAP9) wink
User IP Logged

diamond
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

sand is not a place for heads


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 59
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #3 on: Nov 22nd, 2006, 11:06am »

hi hubcap 9 i'm no photo expert but to me the first two are identical situations as are the second two. the chances of photographing the same object at the same place years apart must be astronomical . one photo of each is genuine , which one? this is weird and for that reason i smell a rat.even the trees look the same. anyone else? maybe lawwalk or johnyanon.can spread some light for us.
like you i have always thought the villa photo's to be genuine. why would anyone copy them and claim them for themselves?

diamond cool
User IP Logged

imagine all the people living life in peace.

john lennon
Lateral
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 34
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #4 on: Jan 3rd, 2007, 9:22pm »

Those photos do look very similar not only in craft appearance but also background appearance.

I am sure I had a toy as a child that resembled the first 2 UFO pictures did anyone else have this? or maybe it was something else all together.
User IP Logged

backlit
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 339
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #5 on: Jan 4th, 2007, 12:49am »

Lateral, I do remember a plastic model of the flying saucer from the TV show "The Invaders". It had a similar shape to the object in the photos but it is not the same.
User IP Logged

Johnbro
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 404
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #6 on: Apr 4th, 2007, 08:49am »

That is the same object as in the Adamski photos.
User IP Logged

HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff

member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 276
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #7 on: Apr 4th, 2007, 1:27pm »

If you compare the backgrounds of the 1963 Paul Villa photo with the 1970's Neil Slade photo, the hill to the right of each craft (as we look at it) is identical,with the same notches on the horizon.If we look at the horizon to the left of the craft,again we see a similarity though the angle of the slope of the hill is steeper in the Neil Slade photo.
This suggests to me that the location is the same in both photos though in the second photo,ie. Neil Slade, the position of the photographer is slightly different.
Does anyone have any more thoughts on this interesting puzzle?
User IP Logged

Merlin
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #8 on: Apr 7th, 2007, 1:56pm »

I would say that the first two pics are in the same place but are different pictures, weird.
User IP Logged

Johnbro
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 404
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #9 on: May 24th, 2007, 06:51am »

Take an even closer look at those two pics. They are over a nearly identicle gulley.... AND... there is what looks like a single out-standing tree... just below the object.... and slightly to the right.
Obviously, not the same pic, though.

Also... in the '70's' pic... notice the little balls of white light that are in the vicinity. As if orbs accompany them.

As I have seen an actual saucer... with my own eyes... and know that they do exist. But I also wonder if they have USAF emblems on them. wink
User IP Logged

jugement
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 910
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #10 on: May 24th, 2007, 5:06pm »

I agree with you all about this photo is real I am no expert on photos some times you just know ..back when I saw 5 ufos in the 70s Ihad no picturs and I asked myself who would believe that I saw 5 ufos on a busy street by a housepital .
User IP Logged

Free Will Does Exist But Only When It Is Used To Break Out Of Malevolent Disagreeable ,Bad HABits THat Have Been Developed IN LIFE.
Imshadi
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 25
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #11 on: Oct 31st, 2007, 04:13am »

I have what seems to be an image of the same photo taken at a later date (it has some damage not present in yours).

User Image

If you look carefully, you will notice that the UFO is out of focus when compared to the background, and this can only happen if the object is small and close to the camera.

My opinion here, unfortunately, is that this photo is a hoax.

There is also some confusion as to the story, as I have this image classified as from 1964, but I am not sure which date is more accurate.
« Last Edit: Jan 3rd, 2013, 12:16am by Imshadi » User IP Logged

__________________
Oliver Z.
VFX Supervisor
www.martestudio.com
aleksman71
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 110
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #12 on: Nov 3rd, 2007, 5:37pm »

It is fake.Look similarity.This shows two images on top of each other.One in set a little higher.

User Image
User IP Logged

Imshadi
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 25
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #13 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 12:19am »

Excuse me. I do not want to go around randomly calling any image a hoax. I am a visual effects supervisor at an FX company, and I hope I can bring my expertise to the search for true UFO photographs.

Whatever you did to process your image does not show what you think it does (though I give you some credit and think you are just trying to be sarcastic). It is not a superposition of images. The object, I believe, was actually photographed in the same place and at the same time as the background.

To create realistic CG images, one has to study photography, and there you learn about optics and the workings of light, eyes and cameras.

In the case of this image, there is actually more depth of field (DOF) blur on the object, and that is indeed a sign of it being relatively close to the camera and smaller than one expects. But this is actually enough to know that the image is not that of a true UFO.

I ask anyone who's interested to check my work, so that you may have some idea what credibility to give me.

Regards,
User IP Logged

__________________
Oliver Z.
VFX Supervisor
www.martestudio.com
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1666
xx Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
« Reply #14 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 02:07am »

Imshadi,

I agree with you about the photos seeming to be authentic "in camera" photos (rather than composites). However, I am not so sure about the photos being a hoax. I am not saying they aren't either.

If you look at your photo and the other two variations here, the "Villa" and the "Slade" photos, it seems pretty clear to me that these were all taken at the same time at the same place. They are probably different shots taken from the same roll of film. The only difference between them is the position of the UFO and the general orientation of the background.

The differing positions of the UFO in respect to the background suggest that the object has moved between the photos. So, couldn't the noticeable blur (you suggest indicates a hoax) equally as well be caused by movement of the object as the photos were being snapped?

I have many years of experience at photography myself, so I am familiar with the depth of field issues you mention. But let's face it, if these pics are hoaxed, they are pretty good!

Other issues also are of interest: why is the supposed "earliest" example of these photos also the worst reproduction? It is a terribly degraded example compared to yours and the Slade prints, which appear to be genuine color prints of '60s or '70s vintage.

Even more intriguing is the object's resemblance to the Adamski "bell shaped" craft. This craft has appeared in many photos from different places and years. They have supposedly been photographed in the States by Howard Menger and in England by a young boy. However, those pics are terrible when compared to these.

And, as Backlit points out, this same type of craft was actually made into a Model kit by Aurora. The TV Series came out in 1967 and the model kit was released as a tie-in for the TV series. The model was clearly modeled after the Adamski photos from the '50s. If the Villa photo is correctly dated to '63, then his photos predated the model kit and TV series.

User Image

Here is one of Adamski's photos. I am aware of some issues here as well. But I find the comparison interesting at any rate.

So, do you think the blur could be movement as opposed to depth of field? The scenery in these photos is not that clear either. This suggests poor focusing, a cheap camera or both.


User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Pages: 1 2 3  ...  7 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls